Headlines

Walter Kirn

What gun owners really want

It’s flattering being recruited into an ethos of responsibility. It makes you want to walk the line. It also reminds you how arbitrary some lines are. Cross the wrong state border with your gun or wake up one morning to new legislation or a new presidential executive order, and suddenly you’re the bad guy, not the good guy. No wonder some gun owners seem so touchy; they feel, at some level, like criminals in waiting. This feeling helps promote a bond. “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,” says the cussed old right-wing bumper sticker. Perhaps there should be another one that says: “If guns are outlawed, there will be a lot more outlaws.”

A few months after taking the concealed-carry class, my friend and I attended a benefit for a small-town charity that attracted several people of means. Barbecued ribs were served on the host’s porch and somehow the talk turned to crime and self-defense. The former CEO of a huge company described being kidnapped for ransom many years ago. The man had escaped his captor and cheated death, he felt; he’d carried a weapon ever since, loaded with man-stopping, lethal ammunition of the sort that starts flying off the shelves when “Meet the Press” hosts wave ammo clips around on Sunday morning. Soon, other rib-eaters got to talking guns, and it emerged that a group of them, all women, liked to get together, don fancy clothes, and practice their marksmanship. They invited my friend to join them for their next outing, drawing her further into a new “us” that, only recently, had been a “them” to her.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I want to be able to lawfully carry my sidearm anywhere I want in these 50 states, as is supposed to be the rule of law. I wouldn’t mind owning a full auto rifle either, but I wouldn’t go to the mat over it. I shot one at a range in Vegas, and it was a ton of fun to shoot.

If the Constitution said the right to an abortion shall not be infringed, there’d be 3rd trimester abortion clinics like there are 7-11’s.

I just love it when you link some lefty rag and just put someone’s name I don’t know up so I help to increase their pages views. Remember when this blog thing was an actual fight for page views and we didn’t link the enemy? You guys seem to link huff post, tnr, buzzfeed and all the ilk far too much. Remember how it used to work? you read it and tell me about so I don’t have to. By increasing their page views you give them credibility.

You guys seem to link huff post, tnr, buzzfeed and all the ilk far too much. Remember how it used to work? you read it and tell me about so I don’t have to. By increasing their page views you give them credibility.

And big surprise that the clown still can’t avoid using a lazy strawman to characterize the position of those who disagree with him:

To certain fellow gun owners whom I was ashamed to regard as fellow anythings, my belief that the public has a right to collective self-defense from those who abuse their individual rights qualified me as traitor and a weakling.

Will leftists ever develop an ability for argument that does not rely heavily or, more often, exclusively on strawmen?

To some in the gun-owning fraternity, this view makes me a traitor. So be it; I think they’re wrong. As they have repeatedly pointed out themselves, and as even Wayne LaPierre might agree, assault rifles are functionally similar to ordinary semi-automatic rifles, differing chiefly in their sinister cosmetics, not in their underlying ballistics. This being the case, what will be lost by giving them up? Nothing but their destabilizing allure for the grandiose, image-obsessed mass killers who favor them—and whose crimes represent a far greater risk to gun rights than does the perceived hostility of certain politicians. By assenting to such a ban, the gun-owning community can demonstrate precisely the sort of reasonable public-mindedness of which some believe it to be incapable.

Can you even find one of those? I can’t understand how Kel Tec makes a gun that tons of people want but they weren’t able to provide any stock (even before this run). I was looking for that gun months ago and couldn’t find squat.

I am amazed that you can’t find any regular 22LRs with huge capacities. One would imagine that you could easily fit 30 or 40 rounds in a mag the size that takes 17 rounds of 9mm. But it seems that just about every little 22LR pistol has 10 round mags for some odd reason. I guess it’s an artifact of the last ban … but it still makes no sense, at all. If someone came out with a 22 with a 35 round mag that pistol would sell like hotcakes.

To some in the gun-owning fraternity, this view makes me a traitor. So be it; I think they’re wrong. As they have repeatedly pointed out themselves, and as even Wayne LaPierre might agree, assault rifles are functionally similar to ordinary semi-automatic rifles, differing chiefly in their sinister cosmetics, not in their underlying ballistics. This being the case, what will be lost by giving them up? Nothing but their destabilizing allure for the grandiose, image-obsessed mass killers who favor them—and whose crimes represent a far greater risk to gun rights than does the perceived hostility of certain politicians. By assenting to such a ban, the gun-owning community can demonstrate precisely the sort of reasonable public-mindedness of which some believe it to be incapable.

aquaviva on January 31, 2013 at 8:41 PM

I caught that too. And, I think, the counter question to his: What will be gained by giving them up? Nothing.

Except LaPierre probably would not agree, since assault rifles can be full auto and are already, as a practical matter, banned for almost everybody.

Fenris on January 31, 2013 at 8:54 PM

I don’t see how this is constitutional, truth be told. “Shall not be infringed.” If people don’t like that and their position is so popular, they should amend the constitution. Otherwise, abide by the law. I know – it’s like I’m living in a fantasy land where I expect the royalty and aristocracy of government to live within the rule of law. The law is for us poor peasants. It’s like the Magna Carta never happened.

Some have already stated it. what gun owners really want is for their constitutionally protected right to bear arms not to be infringed. not now. not ever. not for any bleeding heart reason. I don’t give a fk how much concern you have or how many children you parade around, you do not have the right to infringe on my 2nd amendment right. so piss off reprobates.

I believe ATI makes an mp5 clone in 22lr that accepts a 100 round drum. fake suppressor and all.

tom daschle concerned on January 31, 2013 at 9:01 PM

Yeah … there are decent large mags and drums for rifles and carbines, but I mean a regular sized mag in a regular pistol (like the PMR-30, though I’m not a fan of 22 WMR, since there’s no real cost saving on the ammo from centerfire).

I’ve got a Tanfoglio Witness that takes 12 rounds of 40S+W but with the 22 conversion kit the 22 mag only takes 10 rounds, which seems pretty ridiculous. They could easily fit 25 or 30 rounds of 22 in a mag the same size. But they just won’t make them. No one will, it seems. Very odd.

I wonder if it has to do with the round itself? I have a tacticool ruger 10/22 with the bx-25 25 round mags and they are not reliable. I have to disassemble them and clean them after a day at the range. is there even a double stack 22 mag on the market? everyone I have seen is single stack.

Outside of the Second Amendment, according to this guy, we don’t need “assault” weapons and shouldn’t have them. Of course, the stultified libruls that claim to know what an assault weapon is, think that a bayonet stud makes an assault weapon. As long as there are self deluded, self-righteous liberals, that think that, we need to exclude them from being legislators. They are too dumb to be allowed to make laws.

As they have repeatedly pointed out themselves, and as even Wayne LaPierre might agree, assault rifles are functionally similar to ordinary semi-automatic rifles, differing chiefly in their sinister cosmetics, not in their underlying ballistics. This being the case, what will be lost by giving them up? Nothing but their destabilizing allure for the grandiose, image-obsessed mass killers who favor them—and whose crimes represent a far greater risk to gun rights than does the perceived hostility of certain politicians. By assenting to such a ban, the gun-owning community can demonstrate precisely the sort of reasonable public-mindedness of which some believe it to be incapable.

That’s how the left was given control of the schools, and the universities, and the courts, and the media, and… We gave it to them because they pitched a fit and called us names and said it was only fair, and we didn’t want to be perceived as hostile. And now they control our lives because they wanted to and we let them.

The gun banners will never respect us because we give in. How much respect does the NRA get for going along with the Brady background check? None. And here they are saying they want more background checks, that the NRA is evil because this time they’re saying ‘No’.

If we follow this man’s advice, the same thing will happen again: No credit, no reduction in violence, and next time they’ll want more. And more. And more. Because, as he said, there’s no significant difference between “assault weapons” and the rest of the semi-autos, so give up those, why are we being so obstinate? Why can’t they ban our .38 revolvers if they shoot essentially just as fast as a banned semi-auto? And once you’re down to a single-shot or a .22, there’s no defensive utility in them, so give them up, too. By then there won’t be enough gun owners left to oppose them anyway.